Talk:10th Mountain Division (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 10th Mountain Division (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 21, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Colorado / Military history (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
 
WikiProject New York (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Question[edit]

How is this unit related to the division that fought in Italy during World War II? I do have some materials about the older unit I could contribute, but I don't know when the older division was disbanded & the newer one created. -- llywrch 23:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch, If you read the article you can see when 10th Mountain Division of WWII was disbanded and when the current 10th Mountain was activated. Even though it was some 30 plus years later the division retains the lineage and heritage of the WWII Division. At Fort Drum, New York a wonderful museum exists with many articles from WWII, many of the street names and buildings are named after soldiers and actions of the 10th Mountain in Italy. Mark O'Dell 9 October 2008

Page move[edit]

I think moving this page from 10th Mountain Division was a bad idea. Inserting "U.S." isn't necessary for disambiguation. It's like the Coldstream Guards -- there's only one unit that uses this name. I suggest that it be moved back. JamesMLane 05:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are other 10th Division units in other countries, but no other 10th Mountain Division. There is no need to over complicate it by adding an unneeded qualification. --rogerd 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was undecided about this for awhile, since as far as I know, the above comments are correct, and the name been officially changed to Mountain instead of Infantry. However, the reasons I finally decided to go along with the change were:
    • The naming convention states "The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit, or where the name is clearly unique. In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be pre-emptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit." So, since a bunch of countries don't have their militaries listed yet, I thought it was better to be proactive.
    • Next, it doesn't really matter too much what the page/article title is. It doesn't complicate things, since people can call (link) it however they want by [[10th Mountain Division (United States)|Whatever name you want the link to be]].
    • I used the AWB program to find all pages that linked to the original page and changed the links accordingly, though maybe the name on a few slipped through the cracks, so they appear with the "(United States) disambiguator. If so, they are easy enough to correct, or you can supply me with the pages and I can can add a new name to the link.
I know how you feel about unit names. I'm ex-Army myself and take pride in my old unit as well, but I didn't change the name of the unit, just the page title the unit's information is on. It can still be referred anyway you wish. wbfergus 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Riva Ridge[edit]

The horse is named after the German position in Italy, taken by the 10th Mountain Division in WWII. There's 5-figure coverage of that action on the Web, NPR is publicizing some coverage of it today, and the horse article mentions it but the unit's article does not, at least by name. A lack that deserves correction.
--Jerzyt 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Added WWII Task force --dashiellx (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 10th Mountain & Operation Downfall[edit]

According to my father (who was in the 10th during WWII), this division was scheduled to be part of the invasion of the home islands -- an assertion he's repeated many times over the last 4-5 decades. However, the article on this event fails to mention the 10th having any part in this. Can anyone provide a reliable source that confirms what my dad has always told me -- or at least confirm that other members of this unit believed they would have been fed into that meatgrinder had there been no other options? -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Combat operations for the division ended with the surrender of the remaining German forces in Italy on 2 May 1945. The division returned to the Hampton Roads (VA) port of embarkation on 11 August 1945 and arrived at Camp Carson, CO, on 16 August 1945. It was inactivated there on 30 November 1945.

In the January-March 1983 issue of Trading Post, the magazine of the American Society of Military Insignia Collectors, author Al Kauffman wrote:

"Since the 10th Mountain Division was one of the last to enter combat, it was to be used in the projected invasion of Japan. The plan was to reorganize it as a standard infantry division and transfer it to the Pacific. These plans ended with the surrender of Japan in August, 1945."

It does indeed appear that the 10th was to go to the Pacific war, but its move was overcome by events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talkcontribs) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Elvis entry not cited[edit]

The mention of Elvis as a notable veteran is not cited and was orginally posted by someone not signed in under a username on 25 Sep 08.
The entry stated "Elvis Presley was assined to what is now 10th BSB". The article was later cleaned up on 1 Oct 08 by Lolitatronic to its current state.
I recommend removing Elvis from the list of notable veterans until a sufficient source is presented. As he was in the 3rd Armored Division, but not the 10th Mtn as far as I can tell.
Mark.odell (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

XVIII Airborne Corps?[edit]

I was in the Gaggin' Dragons back in 2006-07, when all the restructuring was going on; as far as I know, the Corps lost most of their divisions, which became subordinate to FORSCOM. That could have changed since then, but is there a source stating that the unit is still under XVIII Corps? Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting Review --Vinay84 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • First opinions, Most of the info seems to have come from Self-published sources,like Fort Drum Public Affairs Office . Self-published sources are largely not acceptable.
  • The title of the subsection "legacy" is inappropriate since the unit is still active. Suggest split into "In popular media" and "Alumni" sections.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The Article seems well referenced and well written
  • IS the redlinked Panama Canal Division the same as Panama Canal Division (United States)? Please check all redlinks for spelling and articles in different spellings
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vinay84 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Request authors to do another redlink check for the remaining redlinks.Do not remove any, just check once.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. As far as I can tell, all of those subjects don't yet have an article on Wikipedia. —Ed!(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lot of single sentence paragraphs especially in the initial sections.See if they can be merged or expanded.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Merged most of these sentences. —Ed!(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • File:U.S. Army soldier securing site - Parun, Nuristan - 06-27-2007.jpg in Initial deployments section has a delete alert.
    • Replaced image with another copy without the notice. —Ed!(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some statements need citation and have been marked in the article. --Vinay84 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? I can't find any "citation needed" templates. —Ed!(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a subordinate unit of the XVIII Airborne Corps and the only division-sized element of the US Army to specialize in fighting under harsh terrain and weather conditions. Move the statement into the article proper and give a reference.
    • Done. That statement is reiterated in the "Organization" section, with a ref. —Ed!(talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job till now. --Vinay84 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There are dead links :E.g. Lineage and Honors of the 10th Mountain Division and 4th Brigade Combat Team Website . Check the links and references and if possible update them.
  • Since you already have Fort Drum website among the references, there eis no need for it again in Eternal Links

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Done both points. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is it.Looks good now. Passed. --Vinay84 (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

The second paragraph begins with "Activated in 1943, the 10th Mountain was the last US Army division to enter combat in World War II..." Looking at author Shelby Stanton's book that covers all US Army WW II combat units down to battalion level, we see the following:

Division - Entered Combat

  • 10th Mountain - 8 January 1945
  • 8th Armored - Late January 1945
  • 13th Armored - Early April 1945
  • 16th Armored - Late April 1945
  • 20th Armored - Late April 1945
  • 65th Infantry - Early March 1945
  • 71st Infantry - Early March 1945
  • 76th Infantry - Late January 1945
  • 86th Infantry - Late March 1945
  • 89th Infantry - Mid-March 1945
  • 97th Infantry - Late March 1945

Given this information, can anyone defend the claim that the 10th was the last US Army division to enter combat in World War II?

User: VilePig —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talkcontribs) 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can fine a page number for this source and it is reliable, the info should be included. However, since a reliable source (the 10th Mountain Division) disputes this, the place in the article where this fact is stated should say something like "The division claims it was the last to enter combat in World War II (current source) while other sources dispute this (Your source)." Hope that helps. —Ed!(talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the 10th was not the last combat division to enter the war. That point is indisputable since all historical documentation says otherwise. Perhaps the author of the text as currently written assumed that a division that entered the war in Europe only four months before the end must have been the last, but that's obviously not the case. At best, the 10th can only claim to be "one of the last." Others entered combat only weeks before the end. I'll run this past the U.S. Army Center of Military History in Washington, DC, and get their reading on it, but I already know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talkcontribs) 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The US Army CMH reply was, "As a policy CMH does not make statements with first, last, most, youngest, oldest, etc." Sounds like a policy crafted to keep them out of arguments between active units (commanded by colonels and generals who can make real trouble for people) and military unit veteran associations.

"Order of Battle: U.S. Army, World War II" by Shelby L. Stanton was published in 1984 by the Presidio Press, ISBN 0-89141-195X. It covers every combat unit down to battalion level and it is based entirely upon documents in Army records, not false claims. The following are the page numbers citing when each division listed above entered combat:

  • 10th Mountain - page 93
  • 8th Armored - page 59
  • 13th Armored - page 66
  • 16th Armored - page 68
  • 20th Armored - page 69
  • 65th Infantry - page 136
  • 71st Infantry - page 141
  • 76th Infantry - page 143
  • 86th Infantry - page 158
  • 89th Infantry - page 163
  • 97th Infantry - page 174

The only way the claim made in the second paragraph could be true is if it is qualified with the statement that the 10th was the last division to enter combat among all of the divisions currently on active duty. All of the others listed above have been inactive for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talkcontribs) 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

99. Battalion (separate)[edit]

Hi,

shouldn't the 99. Infantry Battalion (Separate) be listed here somewhere ...? (That would be these guys: http://www.99battalion.org/)

MVH,

T

The 99th is mentioned at Camp Hale and 74th Infantry Regiment (United States). EricSerge (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)